A review of the methods used by the US Environmental Protection Agency to assess the financial impacts of the repository regulations

Abstract

All Federal agencies must consider the financial impacts of their regulations. When costs significantly outweigh benefits, the Office of Management and Budget can recommend that Congress not provide the funds needed to implement the regulation. Without funds, the agency is forced to either revise or retract the regulation. This has happened previously with a regulation on uranium mill tailings proposed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and it could happen again with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that govern the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The EPA (1985, 1992) claims that its regulation: ``Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste`` (40 CFR Part 191 or standards) does not increase costs above what the US Department of Energy (DOE) would spend anyway or, at most, what the DOE would spend to comply with 10 CFR Part 60: a regulation promulgated by the NRC. This report reviews and disputes the EPA claim. In Chapter 2 a summary of the basis for the EPA claim is presented and in Chapter 3 a critique of the basis of the claim is presented. This critique finds the EPA basis unrealistic, incomplete, and misleading. According to the EPA, a repository at Yucca Mountain would easily meet 40 CFR Part 191 even without the use of special engineered barriers. Because the NRC regulation (10 CFR Part 60) requires engineered barriers, the EPA places the onus for regulatory costs on the NRC. We disagree; the EPA standards drive regulatory costs as much as NRC regulations. The EPA has the higher responsibility for setting the overall standard for safety while the NRC can only implement this standard.